So, I've been sick a bit this week(thus me posting a bit more than I usually would), and as I was lying in bed last night, kept awake through pain, I thought of a question of which I cannot think of a fulfilling answer to: "How would you convince a player not to enter a win state?"

And I don't mean to give them, like, another option, but to invoke the right emotions to stop them wanting to win the game. What emotions would I be invoking?

Personally, I thought this was an interesting concept to consider which could make a really good game.

Reminds me of an episode of ExtraCreditz where they talk about the moral dilemmas in Mass Effect, specifically the player's decision to brainwash an entire race or carry out genocide.Definitely an interesting tactic of engagement.

One thing I thought of is, throughout the course of the game, have a friend who is written to be a character that is loved by the player. This character is then lost to the main villain, before disappearing for a large portion of the game(making the player miss this character), before bringing him back at the end, only to be unwillingly under the villain's command.

Although in my opinion, it seems rather generic, and I'm not sure how many players would become enthralled enough with this character to sympathize him enough to see him die by the player's metaphorical blade(or not metaphorical, depending on the game).

Great topic, I really enjoy the type of entertainment that leaves you with a negative feeling, self doubt, confusion, madness, remorse, regret, loss. Anything that makes the player question his own sanity/morality/actions is worth looking at. I agree that that ExtraCredits episode is a really good one.

Great topic, I really enjoy the type of entertainment that leaves you with a negative feeling, self doubt, confusion, madness, remorse, regret, loss. Anything that makes the player question his own sanity/morality/actions is worth looking at. I agree that that ExtraCredits episode is a really good one.

I think this is different from what's being described in the OP though. In you case, you're describing a game that the player wants to win, but can't. In the OP, what's being described is a game that can be won, but the player doesn't want to win

This reminds me of an idea I had sometime recently of a game that follows the same concept as The Giving Tree... You know how in most games, players start out weak and gradually become stronger? Well, I was thinking, what if there was a game that the player starts at their strongest state; and then throughout the game, they're required to sacrifice things related to the character until in the end, you're left with close to nothing? Would people still want to "win" that game? And if so, how would it be implemented?

In Final Fantasy (2 in the US I think) you play a paladin and confront a mirror image of yourself on top of a mountain. Your mirror image whips your ass every time. There is some dialog that is supposed to help you figure it, but I couldn't. I was too stuck on killing him, as is done with every other enemy in the game. The trick is not to attack him, if you do that then just before he would kill you the story continues and you effectively beat him. Not quite the same as what the OP asks, but maybe related.

Or how about the shmup that deletes a random file on your HDD every time you kill an enemy?

My most interesting experience while playing a game was at the end of bioshock.

At the end of the game the player finds out that he is genetically, psychologically altered/trained to obey every order which is given him with the phrase "would you be so kindly to ...". And in the end there were scenes where you had to do things which you really didn't wanted to do(think it was exploding something and killing someone), but you had to, cause otherwise the game wouldn't proceed. So the gameplay mechanics were forcing you, but cause of the story it really felt if the phrase "would you be so kindly..." had a real affect(forcing you to do stuff) on you.

I think this is a really interesting topic I suppose the only way that you make the player not want to win the game deliberately would be as you suggested, having a companion along the side, but with a twist . If you win the game the companion is lost and there is no way to have the same companion again(Random companions each time or something). Or that the game's an RPG and the world evolve as you play it and at the end the whole game saves gets erased. No one would want to erase a world which they created and influenced, thus the player will not want to win the game. Perhaps.

Great topic, I really enjoy the type of entertainment that leaves you with a negative feeling, self doubt, confusion, madness, remorse, regret, loss. Anything that makes the player question his own sanity/morality/actions is worth looking at. I agree that that ExtraCredits episode is a really good one.

Speaking of madness and sanity, that is the premise of the game I am currently working on, the same games that inspired this question xPBut yeah, using powerful emotion against the audience is a very effective way to not only get their attention on the game, but keep it. Entertainment with the moments that seem to pull your heart out of your chest seems to be the best kind for sure.

I think this is a really interesting topic I suppose the only way that you make the player not want to win the game deliberately would be as you suggested, having a companion along the side, but with a twist . If you win the game the companion is lost and there is no way to have the same companion again(Random companions each time or something). Or that the game's an RPG and the world evolve as you play it and at the end the whole game saves gets erased. No one would want to erase a world which they created and influenced, thus the player will not want to win the game. Perhaps.

I think what I was trying to ask is, not punishing someone for entering a win state, but simply discouraging them from wanting to enter it. Yes, technically, through punishing them you are discouraging them, but it would be much more effective against the user and leave a lasting impression. That said, a world that builds and flows around the user as they move throughout the game, only to be destroyed during the endgame, would be very interesting as well. Possibly allowing the player to now explore the dead world which they worked so hard to create, only to see it in ruins. What would be worse, is if somehow the player was put in a position where they are the ones who destroy it.

My most interesting experience while playing a game was at the end of bioshock.

At the end of the game the player finds out that he is genetically, psychologically altered/trained to obey every order which is given him with the phrase "would you be so kindly to ...". And in the end there were scenes where you had to do things which you really didn't wanted to do(think it was exploding something and killing someone), but you had to, cause otherwise the game wouldn't proceed. So the gameplay mechanics were forcing you, but cause of the story it really felt if the phrase "would you be so kindly..." had a real affect(forcing you to do stuff) on you.

Oh, wow. Using gameplay mechanics as a medium of storytelling is a rather interesting, and seemingly powerful way to storytell. And the way it forces you to do something that the user probably doesn't really want to do at all is.. wow. And even though that isn't discouraging the player to not do something they want to do and instead encouraging them to do something they don't, it is quite though-inducing.

In Final Fantasy (2 in the US I think) you play a paladin and confront a mirror image of yourself on top of a mountain. Your mirror image whips your ass every time. There is some dialog that is supposed to help you figure it, but I couldn't. I was too stuck on killing him, as is done with every other enemy in the game. The trick is not to attack him, if you do that then just before he would kill you the story continues and you effectively beat him. Not quite the same as what the OP asks, but maybe related.

Hm. This is an interesting gameplay element, it could be used in a situation like this. Not so much the defeat through not defeating, but more the win through not trying. Which leads me to this possible gameplay element: trying too hard makes you lose.

This reminds me of an idea I had sometime recently of a game that follows the same concept as The Giving Tree... You know how in most games, players start out weak and gradually become stronger? Well, I was thinking, what if there was a game that the player starts at their strongest state; and then throughout the game, they're required to sacrifice things related to the character until in the end, you're left with close to nothing? Would people still want to "win" that game? And if so, how would it be implemented?

So your solution would be to change the win state itself, instead of changing the feelings of those who wish to obtain it? That is an interesting perspective.

I like these kind of discussions, where it allows people to bring forth ideas and inspire others', then those people then coming back to again inspire others' with their inspired ideas. A cycle that creates complete and utter creativity. It's certainly better than yet another topic about someone's latest library or a problem they're having with LIBgdx. People in early game development seem to always forget that there is more to being an indie developer than code and art. It's fine if you want a job working at a AAA studio, where they have people specifically to do game design, but in indie, you do not. And if you want to succeed, you need to do more than make something like looks nice: it must also have function.

I think there is a similar situation in Jedi Academy where to win you don't kill the final character. I like games which don't give the obvious kill the bad guy ending and have choices that develop your character and change the story based on your path you choose like the Knghts of the old Republic.

There's Planescape Torment, which revolves around the question, "What can change the nature of a man?" The answer is never given, but would seem to be "nothing", at least for The Nameless One. TNO is never able to escape his fate and find his own redemption, but does at least manage to deliver it to his companions throughout the story as he helps them resolve their own inner torments.

I don't think you can ever really motivate the player to "not win", but you can certainly make "winning" mean something very different than one's own glorification, as Torment certainly demonstrated.

Maybe the trick is to give the player some flexibility regarding what the "win state" is so she can make a choice?

Many games railroad things so there is only one possible option, and players end up following through because they (correctly) think in metagame terms, that is, they recognize how the game mechanics are working and understand they have no real choice going forward.

That is the failing of most morale systems, in my opinion, they revolve around a simple switch condition between "good" and "bad", with little granularity, and the player recognizes this, leading to "all good" and "all bad" playthroughs, since there is little reward in choosing the in-between option.

I think the first Fallout game (Vault 13 FTW!) did this in a very interesting game. There wasn't so much a "good" and "bad" ending, but a montage of the consequences from the choices made in each part of the game, which resulted in there not being a clear "win state" for the player to strive towards, beyond the main goal of the game.

But I'm probably digressing.... And since I'm still playing through Bioshock for the first time (Just met the first Big Daddy in Hard Mode.... ) and still haven't played through Spec Ops: The Line... I don't want to spoil myself too much by reading through this thread

In UFO: Enemy Unknown I could fly to Mars and utterly defeat the aliens, but that meant an end to fighting street battles in cities, raiding alien bases, building my network of secret bunkers... Going to Mars and 'winning' felt so disappointing. But eventually the game would get so hectic you had to go to Mars or lose everything.

When I was working on my chess game, beating the computer felt depressing - I only felt good when the computer beat me!

You might check out the rumors behind the battle for World Chess Champion between David Bronstein and Mikhail Botvinnik. Bronstein had all but won the match but seemingly decided against consequences of winning the tournament and made a "simple" endgame error (purposely?) that handed the crown back to Botvinnik.

***

Most of the discussion has been about "sticks" but there is also the "carrots" approach. Suppose the game just ends when you win. No big payoff. But if you stick around you can keep playing, extend the fun or explore or gain some other reward.

This conversation really reminds me of "Save the Date". It's a game that I've played recently that acts on the very concept of "winning" a game, and how the player "wins the game".

It's a pretty short game, so if you have some time, you should definitely check this out. You'll probably come back with lots more to say. I really don't want to spoil the ending, so I'll just leave this link here and if anybody says anything about this later, we can have a discussion.

I think this is a really interesting topic SmileyI suppose the only way that you make the player not want to win the game deliberately would be as you suggested, having a companion along the side, but with a twist Wink. If you win the game the companion is lost and there is no way to have the same companion again(Random companions each time or something). Or that the game's an RPG and the world evolve as you play it and at the end the whole game saves gets erased. No one would want to erase a world which they created and influenced, thus the player will not want to win the game. Perhaps.

I think what I was trying to ask is, not punishing someone for entering a win state, but simply discouraging them from wanting to enter it. Yes, technically, through punishing them you are discouraging them, but it would be much more effective against the user and leave a lasting impression. That said, a world that builds and flows around the user as they move throughout the game, only to be destroyed during the endgame, would be very interesting as well. Possibly allowing the player to now explore the dead world which they worked so hard to create, only to see it in ruins. What would be worse, is if somehow the player was put in a position where they are the ones who destroy it.

I feel like this episode of Extra Credits might stimulate the conversation at this point. It's all about choices and the way we view and implement them in gaming.

Quote

Speaking of madness and sanity, that is the premise of the game I am currently working on, the same games that inspired this question xPBut yeah, using powerful emotion against the audience is a very effective way to not only get their attention on the game, but keep it. Entertainment with the moments that seem to pull your heart out of your chest seems to be the best kind for sure.

I'm a fan of the works of H.P. Lovecraft so I totally agree that non-positive emotions can be effective and maybe desirable. It's almost like schadenfreude the way I feel when I'm wanting to read one of the miserable stories written by H.P.L.In addition, I wanted to talk on similar lines with you all, without a threadjacking taking place so I've started a parallel topic (kind of) about some specific emotional motivators in gaming. It's HERE.

The Greeks had a pretty good handle on the utility of "negative emotions" with their most enduring dramatic form; there's a reason the saying "The story goes like like a Greek comedy" never really entered the lexicon, but it did when you substitute tragedy. One can relate to the portrayal of tragedy on several levels, whether it's as a moral lesson, an exercise in empathy, or simply realizing that when the play is over that hey, it didn't happen to them so maybe life's not so bad.

One could certainly do worse than to study the history of dramatic forms if they want to become an effective writer of games plots. The emergence of horror as a recognized genre, for example, is pretty interesting. It's probably one of the oldest forms (what with cavemen telling stories of the strange and terrifying world outside) but as a dramatic genre, I suspect its roots are somewhat newer, since there aren't too many ancient plays we know of that aimed at frightening their audience.

MGS2, coming from the huge success of MGS1, had a lot of fans from the get-go and the director of that game took that (among other things) into account in an interesting way. Basically, MGS2 deliberately (and obviously) baited and mocked their fans while also in a way making fun of the fact that the player was playing the game. It's the only one of its kind and, at the time, MGS2 was meant to be the final game in the series.

I know there is a couple of instances that'll make me not want to complete a game (win or lose).

1) Exploration: If there is a lot of things in the game that I need to collect, or if there is a different play through of the game that I can explore (without having to restart). These things really keep me from finishing a game and instead put me in the mode to collect as much as I can.

2) Frustration: If a game is way too "punishing". I don't want to take the time to complete it. A game that doesn't make me feel like I'm getting anything out of the experience is one I don't want to waste my time on.

3) Boredom: If a game can't hold my interest. I usually will not try to win it at all.

If there is any way to create a game that will try to prevent you from winning, it would probably be akin to the first option. Games usually have "multiple" endings, and each of those endings can be associated to actually "winning" the game. Of course, I am associating "winning" to actually mean "completing" the game. A game that awards you for losing would be a good example of this.

To be honest, getting a person to morally not want to complete a task can be as easy as making that choice very unappealing. You can be direct by just preventing them from entering a room via an invisible wall. You can be indirect by making the boss of that room impossible to defeat. Getting someone not to complete your game really takes a lot of work, turning it into an endless grind. An MMORPG as it were; Something where you can spend hours of time and never essentially win.

However, in terms of emotion, you would need to give the antagonist as much impact as the protagonist. You would have to get the player to feel emotionally invested in both characters of the story. Both of those characters would have to be correct, and the choice would have to be very debatable between both parties. A game like that would really need to be stellar in order to pull that amount of depth out of two characters, though it could be possible with a group (like Mass Effect managed to do with its choices).

Thinking about it, making a game that is very easy to win might be engaging if you can see how long you can last without winning. However, then you'd just be using a cheap sense of reverse psychology.

An Idea that came to me: Offering the player the option of winning the game after each level or at certain points of the game - depending on game style. So if somebody just wants to win he only has to choose accordingly. On the other Hand those who "do not want to win" go on with the game (next level/map/area/quest/...).

You could pair this with a story of good vs evil where the opposing side knows it can not defeat you in the state you currently are but wants you out of the way.They offer you to just win the game so they can follow ther evil/good deeds without you interfering.

From what I've read, a game that did a splendid job of manipulating the player's emotions was Ico (didn't play it myself, though).

The technique it uses is to, at the beginning of the game, keep showing the player that they need to keep close to the princess to succeed. Repetition of this situation conditions the player to feel uneasy about being separated from her.

So once this mental state has been managed, it's when you can start doing interesting stuff, including having the player reject the "win state" because it would mean separation from the "princess".

The bottom line is that games, as anything you train for, can reinforce certain behaviours, and saavy devs can use these behaviours to their advantage.

To cite an example from Yatzhee's ZP videos:

Quote

"In a video game one would visit every bathroom stall in search of medkits and ammo, instead of doing it for illicit sexual thrills"

The lesson here? Turn the game into a massive tutorial, reinforcing the behaviours you want in the player carefully until you're ready to pull the rug from under them.

Heck.... That reminds me of me DM-ing Call of Cthulhu games...

Quote

You want automatic weapons? Sure, sure, stock up! Wow, you really showed those cultists who is boss around these parts. Oh, wait, every monster from now on is completely impervious to bullets! Trying to run? How much do those guns and ammo actually weigh?

Yeah, very cool idea. I definitely agree that one way is to create a sense of loss as a result, whether it's through story or gameplay perks.

One other way that might be interesting is to make it in the same vein as Brenda Romero's Train game. In that case, the user was doing some fun task but was unaware of the broad context. Once they became aware, most people left in disgust. For those who don't want to read the article, it's a board game where you load people onto trains as efficiently as possible, all the while responding to orders from a typewriter. Eventually you realize you have been loading Jews onto trains to concentration camps. The point of it was mainly to make people think about blind order following and how even normal people can do terrible things without thinking about it.

Personally, if I were to make a game where the ending was bittersweet in some way, I would not go Romero's route or a path where I make the player character seem evil or something. To me that kind of ruins the whole point of a video game, unless you're trying to teach something like Romero was. Instead, I would probably go the route of a sacrifice. You kill yourself or lose stats or whatever to benefit the greater good. That can be an impactful ending, and it also still leaves the feeling of accomplishment.

java-gaming.org is not responsible for the content posted by its members, including references to external websites,
and other references that may or may not have a relation with our primarily
gaming and game production oriented community.
inquiries and complaints can be sent via email to the info‑account of the
company managing the website of java‑gaming.org